Your Details
What is your name?
Name
(Required)
Jill Thompson
It is a requirement of the Local Plan consultation process that all responses are published. May we have your permission to publish your response?
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Ticked
Yes, you may publish my response
Theme 2: Where Should Development Go? (Questions 11 to 22)
20. Do you have any comments on the sites suggested for allocation for development in the ‘Call for Sites’ of summer 2020?
Please refer to the site reference number. (Please note, these sites have not yet been assessed by the Council)
2020-Cfs, Land south of Rosthwaite
Issues relating to this site include:
Traffic - access to and from the proposed site off the Cartmel to Cark Road has very restricted visibility at the turn off to Rossthwaite.
Another access route would be via Flookburgh where traffic issues already exist in the square with vehicles turning down Mile Road to access the small industrial units there and the large volume of users of Haven caravan site, this is now at all times of the year and not just the summer season. It is dangerous to both drivers and pedestrians and any further increase in volume of traffic would have only increase these issues.
Other access routes include Allithwaite via Applebury Hill and Cartmel via Birkby both of which are narrow roads often not wide enough for 2 cars to pass and predominantly used by pedestrians, therefore any increase in traffic would be hazardous.
The Mosses Road to Haverthwaite (a commuter route to Barrow and Ulverston) is in poor condition, increased traffic volumes will increase issues on this stretch of road.
Parking and traffic flow within Cark village is already an issue with cars parked along most of the pavements creating single traffic lanes. Any increase in traffic will only add to these issues and could easily be life threatening if emergency service vehicles are prevented or hindered access. This becomes an even bigger issue when local events are being held such as Cartmel Races, Holker events, car boot sales at Flookburgh Camp.
Facilities - there is no school at Cark so children would need to be taken to Flookburgh or Cartmel and it must be questioned as to how many additional pupils could be taken by the existing schools. Likewise for doctors surgeries, post offices and nearest being Flookburgh or Cartmel. There are no petrol stations so vehicles would need to travel for these.
Utilities - electricity supplies to Cark are impacted by peak power outages, could a doubling of demand be managed. Sewage currently enters the River Ea when the pumping station reaches capacity and I would question whether both the surface water and sewage pipe networks could take any additional load. The water network would be under sized for additional housing and the mains in the area, especially those running along Green Lane have a history of bursting.
Flooding - much of the site is Flood Zone 3 which is likely to worsen as we see more impact of climate change.
Environmental impact - there is a wide variety of key species including badger, frogs, toads, bats, curlews, voles that inhabit the area. Many of their habitats would be destroyed and light pollution from a large development would have a significant impact, not only on the wildlife but also on residents who are used to dark skies.
With an increase in housing there will come an increase in commuters to Barrow, Kendal and Ulverston as there is little employment in the immediate villages of Cark thereby increasing CO2 emissions.
Landscape - the character of the local landscape would be changed significantly with the scheduled ancient monument site of Peter Hill impacted totally.
The character of Cark village would be irreparably changed, the proposed 100+ housing development would double the size of this village. A flat modern estate would not be in keeping with the existing mix of properties and layout of the village.
Issues relating to this site include:
Traffic - access to and from the proposed site off the Cartmel to Cark Road has very restricted visibility at the turn off to Rossthwaite.
Another access route would be via Flookburgh where traffic issues already exist in the square with vehicles turning down Mile Road to access the small industrial units there and the large volume of users of Haven caravan site, this is now at all times of the year and not just the summer season. It is dangerous to both drivers and pedestrians and any further increase in volume of traffic would have only increase these issues.
Other access routes include Allithwaite via Applebury Hill and Cartmel via Birkby both of which are narrow roads often not wide enough for 2 cars to pass and predominantly used by pedestrians, therefore any increase in traffic would be hazardous.
The Mosses Road to Haverthwaite (a commuter route to Barrow and Ulverston) is in poor condition, increased traffic volumes will increase issues on this stretch of road.
Parking and traffic flow within Cark village is already an issue with cars parked along most of the pavements creating single traffic lanes. Any increase in traffic will only add to these issues and could easily be life threatening if emergency service vehicles are prevented or hindered access. This becomes an even bigger issue when local events are being held such as Cartmel Races, Holker events, car boot sales at Flookburgh Camp.
Facilities - there is no school at Cark so children would need to be taken to Flookburgh or Cartmel and it must be questioned as to how many additional pupils could be taken by the existing schools. Likewise for doctors surgeries, post offices and nearest being Flookburgh or Cartmel. There are no petrol stations so vehicles would need to travel for these.
Utilities - electricity supplies to Cark are impacted by peak power outages, could a doubling of demand be managed. Sewage currently enters the River Ea when the pumping station reaches capacity and I would question whether both the surface water and sewage pipe networks could take any additional load. The water network would be under sized for additional housing and the mains in the area, especially those running along Green Lane have a history of bursting.
Flooding - much of the site is Flood Zone 3 which is likely to worsen as we see more impact of climate change.
Environmental impact - there is a wide variety of key species including badger, frogs, toads, bats, curlews, voles that inhabit the area. Many of their habitats would be destroyed and light pollution from a large development would have a significant impact, not only on the wildlife but also on residents who are used to dark skies.
With an increase in housing there will come an increase in commuters to Barrow, Kendal and Ulverston as there is little employment in the immediate villages of Cark thereby increasing CO2 emissions.
Landscape - the character of the local landscape would be changed significantly with the scheduled ancient monument site of Peter Hill impacted totally.
The character of Cark village would be irreparably changed, the proposed 100+ housing development would double the size of this village. A flat modern estate would not be in keeping with the existing mix of properties and layout of the village.
21. Do you wish to propose other sites for allocation for development in this further ‘Call for Sites’, which forms part of the current consultation?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
22. Which of these policy approaches for selecting sites for allocation for development do you support and why?
| PA2.6/a: Prioritise brownfield land/vacant/ derelict land and buildings Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/a: Prioritise brownfield land/vacant/ derelict land and buildings No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/a: Prioritise brownfield land/vacant/ derelict land and buildings Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/b: Re-use under-used facilities within established uses Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | PA2.6/b: Re-use under-used facilities within established uses No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/b: Re-use under-used facilities within established uses Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/c: Higher densities with sustainable access to services and facilities Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/c: Higher densities with sustainable access to services and facilities No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/c: Higher densities with sustainable access to services and facilities Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/d: Avoid sites where environmental constraints cannot be overcome Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/e: Avoid sites where environmental harm cannot be mitigated Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/f: Sustainable transport access to services and facilities Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/f: Sustainable transport access to services and facilities No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/f: Sustainable transport access to services and facilities Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/g: Community needs and viable employment development Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/g: Community needs and viable employment development No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/g: Community needs and viable employment development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/h: Allocate sites for strategic housing and employment development Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/h: Allocate sites for strategic housing and employment development No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/h: Allocate sites for strategic housing and employment development Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites with access to existing sufficient infrastructure Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites with access to existing sufficient infrastructure No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/i: Prioritise sites with access to existing sufficient infrastructure Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |
| PA2.6/j: Avoid loss of valued local green /open spaces Yes Radio button: Not checked Yes | PA2.6/j: Avoid loss of valued local green /open spaces No Radio button: Not checked No | PA2.6/j: Avoid loss of valued local green /open spaces Unsure Radio button: Not checked Unsure |